On content and process

I read a very interesting post just recently regarding the difference of content versus process. Process is basically determining action based on the context and is very much done in the here and now. Content has to do with analysis of concepts and the relationships between them and could be taken as learning experiences. Process can also be learning, but the enhancement of action (reflex) on the perception of content identified in a way. Content itself is deep-rooted knowledge of how a concept might have gotten somewhere or how it might relate to other concepts (in various different possible ways).

Maybe if you don't appreciate the arts, you're a person that highly prefers process (objectives), getting things done or moving from A to B without caring much about the how and where. People that really dig art and content may not be as efficient in getting their things done, but they understand the relations between concepts better and "enjoy the journey" :).

This is an interesting differentation of course. If not achieving your objective causes frustration, than this might also explain why some people feel depressed, frustrated or stressed more than other people. Some are just there for the journey and the pleasure, others always want to be somewhere else just as they got somewhere.

The argument of the person writing the article was that long, continuous exposure to video games and films for example didn't train the content-analyzing capabilities sufficiently. Therefore, training people to only get things done without training them on the pleasure/enjoyment of analyzing the interrelationships and contents of things.

Historically, humans have mostly lived together and generally spent a lot of time interacting with one another, developing and improving interpersonal relationships. The virtual environments are however loaded with objectives "just to make it interesting", so the argument that social environments improve relationships isn't a natural argument. It might just provide an excuse for achieving your objectives.

The article also articulated that the development of the individual (the recognition of who you are yourself, your "self-idea" ) isn't as developed. Or stated in another way, you're not sufficiently self-aware or "individualawared" enough. This puts pressure on the need to make more effort to be recognized as a specific type of person, or projected self-image.

This lack of individuality could then be compensated by collecting status symbols, generally projected symbols of what is considered success by oneself. Those symbols of success are basically material trophies like cars, houses and other things, material things that are thought to add up to one's identity. Sadly to say though, one can never gather enough items for individualization, there's always place for more "self-articulation", which explains the unexhaustive search for new items to conquer.

Measuring Performance

Here is a very interesting link to measuring performance and its results:

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/news/20020715.html
It is already common knowledge that whatever metrics (goals) you put in place, people will work towards maximizing that particular goal. Having several goals initially creates a lot of confusion and discussion about the weight of each, but eventually this settles and creates a certain "culture", which you could consider as a weighting of the objectives of that group of people.

A proper means of measurement has everything to do with renumeration models:
A renumeration model for distributed development
Setting a single and individual goal for productivity will fail. People will refuse to work together, there is absolutely no cohesion in the team, only competition. Beyond this not being a 'fun' place to work, it is very stressful and breeds backstabbers. So we need a complementary force to pull the team together. Some competition is good (as it 'advances', but it cannot outperform the need to collaborate).

( There is also some more information on Joel's blog about incentives. )
In the future I believe that the "an-hour-a-dollar" system of renumeration will eventually wane away. Simple because more people will (want to) work at home, collaboration becomes possible with enormous installations of fibre around the world and there is no sense creating a huge, expensive office infrastructure when you spend only a fraction of that cost to develop one's home office.

Fiber installation in Iceland
The traditional hour-measurement systems, if installed at home, can easily be circumvented and cheated. So there is a need for a set of personal and group objectives with appropriate weights, tied together in a renumeration system. Maybe group objectives are better explained as "individual penalties".

You need to reward people that pull the team forward (individual objective), but you cannot reward people that leave the worst work to others (group objective). You cannot penalize a group when one worker leaves much to be desired (group objective), but you cannot penalize newcomers straight from university from not performing too well (individual objective).

In my previous post I discussed the possibility to tie company profit into this system of renumeration (making company profit have an effect on 'salary')

The reasons?

"Having a job" is the most wonderful thing in the world. There is no stress involved if you compare this to actually owning a company. Maybe the knowledge workers of today, consistently aiming at more benefits should feel obliged to share at least some of the burden of finding a proper path for your company to grow. Either through a negative incentive or through a positive renumeration?

The other thing is that it puts more pressures on companies to leave work behind that is simply not productive. You'll be amazed how much is still being done nowadays that does not contribute to a final product. In theory, such a tie with profit would make the company much more flexible and the human capital organizes itself better. But I guess only when it decreases salary. There are some schemes for profit sharing, but this is on top of the guaranteed salary, so the incentive to aim for it is much lower.